> As for hunting, he made a big show a couple of years ago> >about going hunting in front of a bunch of reporters during quail season.> >Nailed himself a world-class meadowlark. Too many witnesses to that one; he> >had to pay the fine.>
What any hunter ordinarily does when he or she shoots out of season or
protected species by mistake. Unless there are witnesses present it is
pretty much an honor system.

I really think it is counter-productive for native fish enthusiasts to
bash sportsmen. At one time they were the only group that was a driving
force toward conserving and enhancing wildlife habitat- I'm talking of
state managed lands and waters which provide refuge for many rare
non-game animals, birds and fishes plus plants. Some of the management
methods that emphisise mainly on desired game species may be deemed a
bit obsolete by today's environmentalists but they did work and more
than just the sportsmen and their favorite species benefitted. I don't
hunt but I love to hike in the state game lands during the warmer months
when there is seldom another soul to be encountered. Sure beats
overcrowded state and federal parks. And the land has a diversity of
habitats because of selective timber harvesting and logging roads create
openings.

It would really burn me up if the state were to suddenly close off
public access and declare these lands some kind of ecopreserve off
limits to all but specially permitted scientific researchers. Public
access to nature, be it by hunting and fishing, hiking or the keeping of
native fishes is ; I believe essential for maintaining popular support
for conservation over the long term. If you make the natural world a
tighly controlled comodity accessible only by an elite few then why
should Americans be any more supportive than say citizens of a Latin
American country who are shut out of the decision making loop of what
they've come to see as a "gringo park" set aside for the amusement of
wealthy foreigners.

As for those who believe that our salvation lies in electing
environmentally friendly candidates- even that is no gaurantee that
things will change- seriously does anyone really believe that Gore will
"save the planet"? More likely the auterity measures he or someone from
the Green Party would impose would be very unpopular and if the misery
generated by these policies in the way of higher taxes, restrictions on
land use and jobs migrating overseas not to mention basic shortages of
food or energy were great enough it would generate plenty of fodder for
an opposition candidate who would ride a wave of popular backlash that
would flatten Gore or whoever in the next election. And then there might
be so much public outrage that the new prsident would have little
trouble gutting many regulations in what would be unthinkable actions
today.

That's the trouble when you look to political leadership for the
solutions to all the worlds problems.Especially in a society where power
changes hands every so many years.
"W" may do some things that environmentalists won't like. But over all I
doubt he's going to be a monster. Generally the two major parties are
supportive of environmentalism. Wasn't it Nixon who created the EPA?
There's also a brief article in one of the news magazines about W's new
"Earth-friendly" ranch that enhances wildlife habitat and even recycles
waste water.

Believe me it could be worse. Just be glad that Pat Buchannan is but a
remote possiblity. You think W is bad but Pat is the guy who said on
Earth Day back around 1996 "We used to celebrate Easter- now we worship
dirt"!
And if he's not extreme enough there's always the perennial Lyndon H.
Larouche (something like an Old Democrat with a Vladimir Zirinovsky
twist) whose been reveling in conspiracy theories about "Greenies" and
chasing Bilderbergers years before militias ever became vogue!
When he starts talking : the Twilight Zone theme goes off in most
people's heads!

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K!
Jeff

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org